It was inevitable, of course, and rightfully so: Google is having its big I/O conference, so we have to talk about the lack of Honeycomb's source code. While not violating any licenses, the lack of source code doesn't sit well with many - including myself - so it only makes sense people are asking Google about it. Andy Rubin confirmed we're never going to see Honeycomb's sources as a standalone release. He also explained what 'open' means for Android.

No open development means crippled open source. But I'd even say that open development is really a necessity, not a luxury, for the project which claims to be open source.

Well you'd think "opensource" would actually mean that the source is openly available wouldn't you, you know, open ... source. Goes to show that if you're under the right license your project can be closed tighter than a fish's rectum and you can still call it opensource.

And of course Thom is going to find this to be all ok - this is Google, purveyor of all that is good, wholesome and right in the world...